The History of the Global Warming Scare

The History of the Global Warming Scare

[last update: 2009/07/28]

Background The U.N.-based IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) produced its latest report in 2007 (AR4). Its position on global warming (based on the outputs of computerized climate models) indicates that the models only depend on anthropogenic CO2 after 1970 – prior to that, warming and cooling is explained by natural factors. So even though industrial civilizations have been producing increased amounts of CO2 since the late 1800s, it only becomes a factor in the models after 1970. The following figure combines the IPCC AR4 figure SPM-3 and the temperature anomalies 1850 – 2008 (Hadley Centre data [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/] – the data used by the IPCC). In the 1970s there were many media reports about the coming ice age – global cooling was occurring and society was encouraged to be fearful and to act to prevent it. Time magazine, 24 June 1974: See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Consensus.htm for information on the global cooling consensus and the global warming consensus.

IPCC History The IPCC was formed in 1988 with the purpose of assessing “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.”  -- i.e. its main goal is based on the assumption of “human-induced climate change” – there was never an attempt to evaluate the scientific evidence of the cause. The IPCC released reports in 1990, 1996, 2001 and 2007. Although the IPCC has become the “definitive” authority and always makes statements regarding the definite human causation and upcoming disaster, it has never provided substantial scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause. The only evidence provided is a correlation with CO2 since 1950, but mainly the output of computer models. Solar irradiance is not incorporated. Thus in just over 10 years, the consensus switched from global cooling to global warming – but the definition of climate is “average weather over 30 years”. So how did this sudden switch come about, along with its definitive a priori assumption of “human-induced climate change”?

United Nations The United Nations started promoting environmental concerns in 1971 with the Conference on the Human Environment in Founex, Switzerland, organized by Maurice Strong. This conference focused on the differences between environmental problems occurring in the developed countries (“largely the outcome of a high level of economic development”) and the developing countries (“predominantly problems that reflect the poverty and very lack of development of their societies”). The conference recommended that “The developed countries should ensure that their growing environmental concern will not hurt the continued development of the developing countries”. [Ref.1] Maurice Strong was also the Secretary-General of the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. The 1972 Stockholm Conference led to the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) with Maurice Strong as its first Executive Director (1971-1975).  UNEP’s headquarters were located in Nairobi, Kenya, to continue the conference theme of a link between environment and development issues. However, this location limited its interaction with other U.N. agencies (located mainly in Geneva and New York) and led to the movement of environmental leadership to a NGO, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and its fund-raising arm, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). The IUCN is located just outside Geneva so its staff can interact easily with the UN and its specialized agencies in Geneva such as the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). [Ref.2] Maurice Strong stated at the IUCN 2009 meeting: “In my opening speech at Stockholm [1972] I cited climate change as one of the key issues” [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8OiDUtC2nA]. So during the cooling phase and during the era that the IPCC models say natural factors can explain it all, Strong knew better – climate change would be a key issue. The IUCN was created in France in 1948 (originally as the International Union for the Protection of Nature, it became the World Conservation Union in 1990) [Ref.3]. It was created with a beneficial goal of protecting species and environments, and later turned to “sustainable development”. In the 1970’s Maurice Strong was the director of the IUCN and expanded it to include NGOs, which now control its agenda. The IUCN promotes " lifestyles, based in ecospiritual practice" [Ref.4]. In 1996 President Clinton issued Executive Order 12986, which stated, in part: "I hereby extend to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources [IUCN] the privileges and immunities that provide or pertain to immunity from suit”. He did not grant full immunity to the IUCN (as can be done as part of the International Organizations Immunities Act) but granted mainly the parts of the Act concerning freedom from taxation. The organization's Commission on Environmental Strategy and Planning, claims a mandate to "change human behavior" by using a strategy "based less on the facts ... than on the values they hold." [Ref.4]. Steven Rockefeller (often described as the father of sustainable development), co-authored a book in 1992 called “Spirit and Nature: Why the Environment Is A Religious Issue” describing the principles espoused by the IUCN. The World Commission on Environment and Development was created in 1983 - popularly known as the Brundtland Commission after the chair, Gro Harlem Brundtland (at the time Prime Minister of Norway and former vice president of the World Socialist Party). Maurice Strong who was a vice president of the World Wildlife Fund until 1981, was appointed to the Brundtland Commission, which published its report “Our Common Future” in 1987. It recommended the creation of a universal declaration on environmental protection and sustainable development in the form of a new charter. In 1989 Maurice Strong began preparations for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (“The Earth Summit”). The IUCN had a major role in organizing the conference.  [Ref.5]. Strong Stated: "It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class ... involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and ‘convenience’ foods, ownership of motor-, numerous electric household appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning ... expansive suburban housing ... are not sustainable." In the months leading up to the 1992 Rio conference, Strong (a Canadian who maintains his primary residence in the United States), made various statements against the middle class of the industrialized world. He declared that "the United States is clearly the greatest risk" to the world’s ecological health. This was so, he said, because, "In effect, the United States is committing environmental aggression against the rest of the world." [Ref.6] In 1991 the “The Working Group of Religious Communities on UNCED” – an organization of religious communities from around the world created the “One Earth Community,” as part of the UNCED preparatory process for the drafting of the Earth Charter. [Ref.7] At the UNCED plenary session address, Earth Summit Secretary-General Maurice Strong directed the world’s attention to the Declaration of the Sacred Earth Gathering, which was part of the pre-Summit ceremonies. “The responsibility of each human being today is to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes and values, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior law of Divine Nature." The ceremony program said that the sacred earth drummers would "maintain a continuous heartbeat near the official site of the Earth Summit, as part of a ritual for the healing of our Earth to be felt by those who are deciding Earth’s fate." [Ref.6]. Although the UNCED did not succeed in reaching an agreement on the Earth Charter at the 1992 conference, one achievement was the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The UNFCCC document states: “human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, that these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind, … The ultimate objective of this Convention … is to achieve … stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” Also: “the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries, that per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low and that the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs … The developed country Parties … shall provide new and additional financial resources to meet the agreed full costs incurred by developing country Parties in complying with their obligations” [Ref.8]. A major change in the definition of climate change has then taken place. The UN IPCC, founded in 1988, defined climate change as “any change in climate over time whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity”. But the UNFCCC in 1992 defined climate change with a much narrower definition of “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability over comparable time periods.” By the UNFCCC definition, climate change due to land use changes (such as converting forests to agriculture, etc., which have been shown to affect climate) is not climate change; climate change due to changes in natural factors such as solar variability is not climate change. They are limiting the definition to human emissions altering the composition of the atmosphere. Following the UNCED 1992 conference, Maurice Strong created the Earth Council to promote Agenda 21. Agenda 21 was produced at the 1992 UNCED. From Agenda 21: “Much of the world's energy, however, is currently produced and consumed in ways that could not be sustained if technology were to remain constant … All energy sources will need to be used in ways that respect the atmosphere … the major cause of the continued deterioration of the global environment is the unsustainable pattern of consumption and production, particularly in industrialized countries …  In industrialized countries, the consumption patterns of cities are severely stressing the global ecosystem “ [Ref.9] Agenda 21 has an entire chapter devoted to deforestation (Chapter 11), which states: “Many developed countries are confronted with the effects of air pollution and fire damage on their forests” and yet there is no mention in the entire chapter of the serious deforestation happening in developing countries where most of the world’s forests are being destroyed for charcoal production and subsistence farming. Each chapter has sets of activities and implementation plans along with a statement that “The Conference secretariat has estimated the average total annual cost of implementing the activities of this programme to be about $xx million [amount varies by chapter etc.] from the international community on grant or concessional terms.” The entire Agenda 21 is basically devoted to developing a means for fund transfers from developed to developing countries. Following the UNCED, UNEP commissioned a Global Biodiversity Assessment in 1993. A UNEP document (by a director of the WWF) states: “If climate change radically alters the patterns of agriculture throughout the world, as inevitably it will, where will the genetic material come from to produce the new crop varieties on which human survival will depend? … the greatest gene bank of all is nature, and this is being destroyed at an increasing rate. This is the conclusion of the Global Biodiversity Assessment, the most comprehensive analysis of the science underpinning biological diversity ever undertaken. … Unlike the climate change and ozone treaties, the Convention on Biological Diversity was not preceded by a comprehensive scientific assessment. Scientists persuaded politicians and lawyers that biological resources were being destroyed so fast that the future well-being of the human race could be imperiled.” [Ref.10] there was no attempt at science in this case. In 1994 Maurice Strong launched a new Earth Charter Initiative along with Mikhail Gorbachev, who was president of Green Cross International. Over the next few years, the Earth Charter was developed, in consultation with religious and spiritual advisory groups [Ref.8]. The Earth Charter Commission was formed in 1996 under the leadership of Strong and Gorbachev along with various religious members. The Commission appointed Steven Rockefeller (a professor of religion and ethics) to chair the drafting committee. In 1999 consultations on the Earth Charter were held at the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Cape Town, South Africa and in 2000 the final version was issued following a meeting at UNESCO headquarters in Paris. In 2000, the IUCN co-hosted the first “Earth Forum” along with the Earth Council, run by Maurice Strong, who also addressed the IUCN’s congress, urging the adoption of the “Earth Charter” [Ref.11]. Strong said: ”The unique character of IUCN as a global organization with both governmental and non-governmental members: I am greatly encouraged at revitalization of the long-standing partnership between IUCN and WWF. This, together with your new partnerships with organizations like the Earth Council and University for Peace, and links with the World Economic Forum and World Business Council for Sustainable Development provide IUCN with an unprecedented opportunity for leadership in developing the new mechanisms of global governance. These, I am persuaded, involve a move away from traditional patterns of centralized control to the forming of coalitions and networks of all major actors around specific issues. Indeed, this is what UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is proposing under his program of reform and his new vision for the future of UN. … IUCN has been deeply involved in the process of formulating the Earth Charter which is complimentary to and supportive of your Covenant.” [Ref.14] An “ark” (the “Ark of Hope”) was created in 2001 as a “place of refuge for the Earth Charter document … handwritten on papyrus paper” [Ref.12], as well as a refuge for the “Temenos books” – books “filled with pages of visual prayers/affirmations for global healing, peace, and gratitude”. The ark resembles in size the biblical Ark of the Covenant, complete with carrying poles that “are unicorn horns which render evil ineffective”, and with sides with paintings representing earth elements (i.e. scientific elements such as earth, air, fire, water and spirit). “Symbols of faith from traditional religions and indigenous societies surround the top panel of "Spirit"”. At the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, the Ark of Hope was ceremoniously offered to the world. [Ref.12]. Over the years Maurice Strong served as president of the World Federation of United Nations Associations, on the executive committee of the Society for International Development, and as an advisor to the Rockefeller Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund, and importantly on the Commission on Global Governance (CGG). The CGG was established in 1992, after the Rio conference, at the suggestion of Willy Brandt, former West German chancellor and head of the Socialist International. The CGG denies advocating a one-world government: "We are not proposing movement toward a world government," reassuringly write Co-Chairmen Ingvar Carlsson and Shridath Ramphal, “… [but] this is not to say that the goal should be a world without systems or rules." [Ref.13].  The concept of global governance was promoted in 1991 by the Club of Rome (of which Strong was a member), which issued a report called The First Global Revolution, which asserted that current problems "are essentially global and cannot be solved through individual country initiatives [which] gives a greatly enhanced importance to the United Nations and other international systems." Also in 1991 Strong claimed that the Earth Summit, of which he was Secretary General, would play an important role in "reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance." In 1995, in Our Global Neighborhood, the CGG agreed: "It is our firm conclusion that the United Nations must continue to play a central role in global governance." the Commission's recommendations: for instance, that some UN activities be funded through taxes on foreign-exchange transactions and multinational corporations. Economist James Tobin estimates that a 0.5 per cent tax on foreign-exchange transactions would raise $1.5 trillion annually -- nearly equivalent to the U.S. federal budget. It also recommended that "user fees" might be imposed on companies operating in the "global commons." including carbon taxes, which would be levied on all fuels made from coal, oil, and natural gas. "[Ref.13].  In 1996 Maurice Strong was special advisor to UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. By 1997 Strong was Senior Advisor to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan; Senior Advisor to World Bank President James Wolfensohn; Chairman of the Earth Council; Chairman of the World Resources Institute; Co-Chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum; member of Toyota's International Advisory Board. [Ref.13]. In 1998, while working as a special adviser to Kofi Annan and working on Annan’s reform plan for the entire U.N. Secretariat (as Executive Coordinator for UN Reform), Strong helped structure a new office inside the Secretariat called the U.N Fund for International Partnerships (UNFIP). This was set up to channel Ted Turner’s $1 billion gift to the U.N. directly through the Secretariat. He also joined the U.N Foundation’s board of directors [Ref.15]. It was unclear how the UN could justify accepting private foundation funds, which is a violation of the UN Charter. Article 17, Section 2 of the charter states that UN expenses "shall be borne by the Members as apportioned by the General Assembly." This requirement is supposed to prevent private interests like the UN Foundation from exercising undue influence over the world body. [Ref.16]. The World Resources Institute (WRI) was started in 1983. One of its goals is “to protect the global climate system from further harm due to emissions of greenhouse gases and help humanity and the natural world adapt to unavoidable climate change.” It’s web site states: “Climate change is recognized by WRI as a critical threat to people’s lives and the environment.”. Maurice Strong was the WRI’s Chairman until 1998, when he was replaced by William Ruckelshaus. Ruckelshaus was at the time also Chairman of the Board of Browning-Ferris Industries – the world’s second largest waste disposal company (later became part of Allied Waste). Ruckelshaus was a past member of the President's Council on Sustainable Development, and was the U.S. representative to the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development from 1983 to 1987. Current board members include Leslie Dach (Executive Vice President of Corporate Affairs and Government Relations for Wal-Mart Stores) and Al Gore (Chairman of Generation Investment Management, “a London-based firm that is focused on a new approach to Sustainable Investing”) [Ref.30] From 2003 to 2005 Kofi Annan’s personal envoy to Korea was Maurice Strong, which brought him into close contact with the South Korean government, where Ban Ki-Moon (who took over from Annan in 2007 as U.N. Secretary-General), was then foreign minister [Ref.15]. One of Ban’s first acts when he took charge at the U.N. was to appoint Alicia Barcena, a Mexican environmentalist as his head of management. Strong had brought Barcena into the U.N. in 1991 to help organize the 1992 Earth Summit. To prepare and then follow up on the Rio agenda, Strong founded a network called the Earth Council Alliance, in which Barcena served until 1995 as the founding director of the flagship chapter, based in Costa Rica. She then moved on to jobs inside the U.N. system, including work with UNEP and UNDP. When Strong took charge of the University for Peace along with his other projects in 1999, he invited the Costa Rica Earth Council to move its offices onto the U Peace campus, where it was absorbed into the U Peace structure [Ref.15].   (This document, with its focus on the UN, skips over Maurice Strong’s corporate business career, which includes running Petro-Canada, Ontario Hydro, as well as various other major positions at various resource companies – see the references.) In 1978 Maurice Strong acquired the Colorado Land & Cattle Company, which owned 200,000 acres of San Luis Valley in Colorado -- from Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi. [Ref.17] His company (American Water Development, Inc - AWDI) then applied for rights to sell water from the aquifer lying beneath Baca Ranch. Local ranchers, farmers, and environmentalists teamed up to fight the water deal, fearing the water exportation could lower the water table and hurt both nearby well owners and the fragile ecology of the Great Sand Dunes. Voters within the five-county district overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative allowing the district to borrow up to $472,000 from local banks for legal costs to fight against Strong. The court case dragged on for eight years until 1994, when the Colorado Supreme Court denied AWDI's water-rights application. [Ref.19] After the water sale failure, much of the ranch was sold to the Nature Conservancy and then the federal government to expand the Great Sand Dunes National monument and turn it into a National Park. But the remainder became the new age religious community run by Strong’s wife Hanne. [See Ref.18 for partial information on the Baca / Crestone community]. Strong’s business dealings lead one to wonder whether he is really an environmentalist or simply a major power seeker. [See Ref.20]. One of Maurice Strong’s accomplishments was enlisting certain NGOs as part of the UN process. Recently at Bali they have been getting more open about the real point of the global warming scare: The Climate Action Network web site provides the following discussion: "A common theme was that the “solutions” to climate change that are being posed by many governments, such as nuclear power, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and biofuels are false and are not rooted in justice. ... a climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources" [Ref.23]. France’s former President Jaques Chirac had previously (in 2000) called Kyoto "the first component of an authentic global governance." [Ref.24], while Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, refered to the Kyoto accord as: "Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations". [Ref.25] The former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart stated: "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." [Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998]. In 1974 Maurice Strong gave a speech at a college in Canada at which he said: “The ethic of abundant resources must give way to the ethics of scarcity and conservation” … “Economic growth is not the cure, it is the disease”… “Scientists advise me that there is a possibility that we may already be in the beginning stages of a major shift in the dynamics of the earth's climate system” [Ref.21]. Note that 1974 is the same year as the Time “global cooling” article mentioned near the start of this document. So why in little more than a decade after the global cooling scare of the mid-1970s was the IPCC certain about human-induced global warming? In 2004 the United Nations University – World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER), published a study into possible scenarios for implementing a global tax. It states: “How can we find an extra US$50 billion for development funding? Our focus is on flows of resources from high-income to developing countries… Any foreseeable global tax will be introduced, not by a unitary world government, but as the result of concerted action by nation states… The taxation of environmental externalities is an obvious potential source of revenue. ... Does this mean that the global tax should be levied at the same rate on all countries? To the extent that emissions impose environmental damage wherever they occur, the corrective tax should be the same. However, this needs to be moderated to take account of the unequal distribution of world income. Considerations of global justice point to poor countries bearing less of the cost burden, and may justify the tax being levied only on high-income or middle-income countries.” [Ref.26] This really presents the UN’s view: Unsound science is used by the IPCC to foster “concerted action by nation states” in order to tax CO2 emissions (excluding low-income countries in consideration of “global justice”) and transfer that money to poor countries. They are not actually concerned about the CO2 – just the money: “We are presupposing that the tax is indeed levied on individuals and firms in the form of a carbon levy…  Suppose, however, that we have subsidiarity, where the burden on national governments is determined by their carbon emissions, but the national governments are free to decide how to raise the revenue. As noted above, they may for political or other reasons choose another taxbase.” Another UNU-WIDER publication states: “Support for an international ‘carbon tax’ has been growing since the 1992 UN Earth Summit focused international attention on the damage to the environment caused by excessive use of fossil fuels worldwide. … Over 20 per cent of the tax yields would originate in the US … Distributionally the tax will be regressive, since fuel bills typically form a disproportionately larger portion of the budget of low-income groups as compared to high-income groups.“ So although the only actual carbon-based “damage to the environment” so far is due to deforestation for charcoal and subsistence farming in poor countries, the US will be the major payer, and the American poor will be the worst off as a result. The Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC is Yvo de Boer, a former Dutch public housing bureaucrat who joined the Dutch environment ministry ("To my great amazement, I got the job. I knew nothing about climate change, absolutely nothing," he said in an interview. [Ref.39]). The Economic Times article [Ref.39] states: “In the mid-1990s, global warming was only beginning to register on the Richter scale of international concerns, and de Boer's was mainly interested in how efforts to cut carbon pollution might intersect with development goals. … "What is sometimes forgotten is that a large part of this process is about how 145 very poor countries are going to adapt to the impact of climate change and be helped to grow their economies in a cleaner way," he said.” Many UN people involved in the global warming scare now join the Global Humanitarian Forum when they leave the UN – see http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/HumanImpact.htm#forum for details on this “shadow” UN.

Kyoto The Kyoto protocol was created in 1997. It used 1990 as the basis year for achieving reductions in CO2. Why 1990? That way the EU could take advantage of the reductions in CO2 already made in the closing of communist era industries after the fall of the Berlin wall and the Soviet Union. Jun Arima, lead negotiator for Japan's energy ministry said: "The base year of 1990 was very advantageous to European countries. In the UK, you had already experienced the 'dash for gas' from coal - then in Germany they merged Eastern Germany where tremendous restructuring occurred.” [Ref.36] The following table provides some examples illustrating this [Ref 37]: CO2 Annual Emissions Change Country 1990 – 1995 1995 - 2004 Germany - 11 % - 3 % United Kingdom - 7 % + 2 % France - 1 % + 6 % Czech Republic - 20 % - 4 % European Community - 2 % + 7 % United States + 6 % + 12 % Canada + 7 % + 20 %

U.S. Efforts The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) [Ref.27] bills itself as “the world’s first and North America’s only voluntary, legally binding integrated greenhouse gas emissions reduction, registry and trading system. … The founder, Chairman and CEO of CCX is economist and financial innovator Dr. Richard L. Sandor, who was named a Hero of the Planet by Time Magazine in 2002 for founding CCX, and in 2007 as the "father of carbon trading." CCX and the European Climate Exchange (ECX), now the leading exchange operating in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme are owned by Climate Exchange Plc, a publicly traded company listed on the AIM of the London Stock Exchange. CCX directors include Maurice Strong (who is now capitalizing on his UN work to establish a carbon tax), as well as Stuart Eizenstat, who “has held a number of key positions at senior levels in the U.S. Government. During the Clinton Administration he served as U.S. Ambassador to the European Union (1993-1996), Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade (1996-97); Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs (1997-99), … [he] was also Chief Domestic Policy Adviser and Executive Director of the White House Domestic Policy Staff for President Jimmy Carter (1977-1981). Ambassador Eizenstat played a prominent role in the development of key international initiatives, including and the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, where he led the US delegation.” CCX external advisors include Strong’s cohort Elizabeth Dowdeswell, who is “a former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Before joining UNEP, Ms. Dowdeswell was the Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada. In that capacity she played a leading role in global efforts to negotiate the treaty on climate change adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. She was Canada's permanent representative to the World Meteorological Organization, principal delegate to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”. The connection to the UN goes back to the 1992 UN Rio Earth Summit, when Climate Exchange delivered a paper on the “feasibility of a market-based solution to global warming”. [Ref.31] For more information on CCX and other companies benefiting from the global warming scam, see www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/CarbonMonetization.htm. Follow the money – the creators of the phony global warming scare stories have done so for a very lucrative purpose. In 2007 the World Resources Institute received a $750,000 dollar two-year grant from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (DDCF) to “demonstrate the need for a mandatory federal greenhouse gas registry that is consistent with global greenhouse gas accounting standards. Such a registry will provide the foundation for measuring and tracking major emission sources and will be the basis for a federal cap-and-trade program”. According to Joan Spero, president of DDCF “In the immediate term, one of the most important things we can do to combat the threat of climate change is to design and implement the best possible pricing policies for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases”. This is part of DDCF’s $100 million Climate Change Initiative [Ref.30]. In 1990, the United States Congress enacted the Global Change Research Act, which required the administration to report annually on funding for climate change science. According to a 2005 General Accounting Office report [Ref.28], “Federal climate change funding, as reported by OMB, increased from $2.35 billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004“. The following table is from that report (NOAA is within the Dept. of Commerce). The federally run U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) coordinates the scientific activities of some 13 federal government agencies and departments [Ref.29]: “Over roughly the past 15 years, the United States has invested heavily in scientific research, monitoring, data management, and assessment for climate change analyses to build a foundation of knowledge for decision making. To date, more than $20 billion of research funding has been provided by U.S. agencies and departments.” Also in 1990, the Clean Air Act amendments authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to put a cap on the quantity of pollutants the operator of a fossil-fueled plant was allowed to emit. In the early 1990s Enron helped establish the market for, and became the major trader in, EPA’s $20 billion-per-year sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade program. This cap and trade exchange of NOx and SO2 emission allowances caused Enron’s stock to rapidly rise. It was the forerunner of today’s CO2 trading, now taken up by CCX. Enron was a promoter of the Kyoto Protocol since it would increase their profits. Enron’s Ken Lay had meetings with Clinton and Gore to try to get Kyoto promoted: “Enron officials later expressed elation at the results of the Kyoto conference. An internal memo said the Kyoto agreement, if implemented, would "do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States."” [See Ref.34] At the turn of the 21st century, “California experienced rolling power blackouts, moth-balled power plants that lacked nitrous oxide controls were brought back online, and their owners scrambled for nitrous emission permits for those plants and paid up to 10-fold increases for allowances. … Enron was gaming California's power market to drive power prices sky high and in turn prices for emissions permits.” [Ref.33]. Will this type of situation happen again with CO2 ? Senator Dianne Feinstein of Califor­nia has introduced a measure for government oversight as part of the CO2 trading. She said: “This landmark legislation will not only signifi­cantly reduce our nation’s carbon footprint, it will also generate tremendous economic potential. In fact, new carbon markets – with annual values of approximately $300 billion – are expected to emerge once Congress establishes a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions.” [Ref.32] The Blood and Gore team (Generation Investment Management, with chairman Al Gore and managing partner David Blood – a former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management) has purchased almost ten percent of Camco Group [Ref. 35], which, according to the Camco website: “works closely with major companies worldwide, establishing partnerships to turn our clients’ climate change liabilities into economic, social and environmental assets.” Camco Group states: “We generate carbon credits by partnering with companies to identify, develop and manage projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Camco then arranges the sale and delivery of carbon credits to international compliance buyers and into the voluntary market.” The Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) selected Camco as the Official Carbon Advisor for the 2008 Democratic National Convention, to be held August in Denver “As the Official Carbon Advisor, Camco will work with the DNCC to estimate the Convention's carbon footprint”. Maurice strong is at the forefront of the CO2 monetization. His closing remarks at the 2007 International Financial Forum global conference: “I have to disclose my own association with this process in my earlier role in the United Nations negotiations which established the basis for the development of these new opportunities and now as Chairman of the China Carbon Corporation and Vice-Chairman of the Chicago Climate Exchange.” [Ref.38]

Poznan, Poland 2008 – UNFCCC Annual Monetary Redistribution Meeting The UNFCCC confab was in Poznan, Poland December 2008. BBC environment correspondent Richard Black was unable to make it back to Poznan on Dec. 8 as a result of CO2 protesters disrupting London’s Stansted Airport [http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/]. He talked about how “a long-running dispute between developed and developing countries over how to manage the UN Adaptation Fund which channels money from the international carbon market into climate protection, appears still to be a live issue. The developed countries paying the money regard it as theirs; but so do the developing nations, who argue that it is merely what the west owes them for having created the problem of man-made climate change.” The NGO climate network prepared a newsletter [http://www.climatenetwork.org/eco/poznan-ecos/Eco6can-talk.pdf] reporting: “As Japan so charmingly put it, they can’t be expected to become “the ATM for the world.” “Study after study has confirmed how massive the needs truly are, with last month’s updated financial flows paper from the UNFCCC Secretariat just the latest example. The Secretariat’s report states that the estimates of adaptation funding needs alone remain in the tens, and possibly hundreds, of billions of dollars per year. And the paper is crystal clear about where the responsibility lies, stating that “it is increasingly important” to determine how developed countries will support developing countries in adapting to and mitigating climate changes.” “Developing countries are approaching the climate problem constructively, advancing serious, ambitious and realistic proposals and ideas. It is now time for an equally serious response from developed countries. Finance ministers should not shirk their duty to ensure that resources are made available, adequate to addressing the adaptation and mitigation needs of developing countries. This requires the willingness to commit to generating hundreds of billions of dollars annually, which should be governed by an accountable UNFCCC financial mechanism.”

So who will win in this battle to monetize the carbon? While science was killed as an innocent bystander, the UN with its desire for funding via international taxation vies with exchange corporations who want a piece of the new $300 billion market. (See also: www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/CarbonMonetization.htm)